from the you-only-think-this-is-free dept

It's pretty obvious that The Masnick only pretends to take the weekend off, because man did Techdirt start off the week with some solid stories. While the Techdirt team is pretending to relax, you can catch up on the best posts from the week. While it's true that I occasionally long for the days of single paragraph posts, I'll ignore fellow short post fans & instead follow Mike's example by providing more insight into my insights.

Techdirt has been at the fore of intellectual property issues for a decade or more, and I've learned much along the way while informing friends about how SOPA and related bills would hinder technology advances, harm free speech and do little to promote the progress of science and useful arts. This post will focus on IP issues, starting off with yet another story that demonstrates the duplicity of Chris Dodd. The man who once proclaimed "no lobbying, no lobbying" upon leaving office now counts the days until he can lobby his former Senate colleagues. In the meantime, he is lobbying the Obama administration and inviting a few select tech companies to join in his secret plan to impose government supported censorship, despite claims to the contrary. All in a futile attempt to preserve the existing MPAA business model so his paymasters are insulated from the independent artists who are competing by embracing new technology.

The MPAA/RIAA lobbying juggernaut has been sadly successful in hobbling internet technologies, as congressional insiders and administration officials conspire to increase government control of the internet by proposing laws that would censor disfavored websites under the guise of copyright protection and cybersecurity. The takeaway is obvious, that internet users have to remain vigilant to prevent Congress from choking innovation on the internet and maintaining freedom of action for themselves. That ties in nicely with a story from Planet Money highlighting the parallels between the MPAA & German button weavers, which used government power to insulate themselves from competition enabled by new technology, leading to stagnation in button weaving technology. The parallel becomes clearer by the day. Viacom continues to sue YouTube as part of it's long attack on user generated content, while in content industries left unprotected by legal fiat, we're witnessing the movement of creators from old media to new media. Not losing those jobs in the process but merely shifting the work to outlets where the creators provide the greatest comparative advantage.

As copyright law is a mess, so is the copyright office itself. Copyright assignments last 70 years or more, but electronic records are not available before 1978. That was backward a decade ago and inexcusable today. Billions are spent to influence legislation & hundreds of law enforcement personnel work to enforce intellectual property laws, yet so little heed is given to cataloging our cultural heritage that millions of copyright records are effectively inaccessible. That has real world consequences, as there is a paucity of in print books from the 1930s-1960s since the copyright status of those works cannot be ascertained; in contrast, books from earlier decades enjoy widespread availability. With all the attention being paid to copyright enforcement, we've managed to neglect great works that have already been produced by emphasizing profit over culture. But "is there any value in cracking down on 'piracy' if it doesn't increase sales?" Congress repeatedly compromises our liberties in the name of fighting piracy, but this story suggests even that doesn't boost sales. By emphasizing enforcement and neglecting record keeping, the government has effectively made it more difficult to enjoy new & old cultural works while doing little to improve revenues for the Old Media companies the laws are intended to protect.

Alas, even internet pioneers are allowing this unhealthy obsession with IP enforcement cloud their judgments. As an admitted Flickr addict, I've taken a keen interest in the developing tactical nuclear patent war being fought between Yahoo and Facebook. It's shocking enough that Facebook was awarded patents for (a) drawing rectangles on photos and linking that box to a person, and (b) displaying an integrated list of actions on my items & those I've commented upon. What's more preposterous is that Facebook would sue over concepts so barely differentiated from preexisting Flickr features to (a) draw rectangles on photos and add a note or link, and (b) display separate lists of actions on my items & those I've commented upon. I imagine the 18 other patent claims in the lawsuit are similarly specious. Hopefully, both come to their senses and drop their lawsuits before spending all their money on lawyers.

Now, my least favorite story of the week, which completely destroys my plan to become a multithousandaire should anyone ever decide to take up Techdirt on CWF+RTB and shut down the site for the year. Yes, fellow favorite posts of the week writers, our dreams of launching a class action lawsuit to obtain our just rewards have been squelched by an activist judge* who opined that Huffington Post contributors that wrote articles without any expectation of compensation aren't entitled to any compensation even though Huffington Post turned out to be quite profitable. No justice, no peace!

Here's the thing: none of us are in a position to demand Facebook do anything. If the campaign to get them to not do something is successful, it's not clear that Facebook or anyone else will pick up the baton for subsidized access. In any case, it will certainly take longer to provide that access.

But for people that already have the real internet, getting Facebook to not provide a dumbed down version is a win, right? After all, the poor in developing country shouldn't be allowed the option of accepting Facebook's Internet.org offer. We know better what the developing poor want than they do.

"And two, if Facebook is so very concerned about the poor, it should put its money where its mouth is and shift to a subsidized model that gets Facebook out of the way and provides access to the real Internet, free from obvious interference, censorship, privacy and neutrality concerns."

I imagine providing the real internet for free will cost a little more than Facebook is willing to spend. Who's going to step up & spend the rest?

Maybe sites should just offer 1% for the developing world. 1% of total revenue is used to subsidize internet access. You guys should get it started!

Google Voice costs $0 because the end user has already paid for internet access.

Try using Google Voice without paying for internet access.

Obviously layering VOIP on top of already paid for internet access costs pretty much zero.

So yes, if someone pays for internet access-- maybe Facebook, maybe the government, maybe the tooth fairy-- then VOIP is easy to add on.

But you're living in a fantasy world if you think ISPs or Facebook are going to provide unlimited, uncapped internet access for free. And without that free internet access, there is no $0 Google Voice.

No go ahead and take some new bit out of context and make another attempt at a cogent argument.

Item 3 costs far less than item 1, because only low bandwidth services are allowed in item 3.

There's no economically sound one to enable item-- free internet for all. The only way free service can be provided is either with massive government subsidies or by instituting limits on either total data or the type of sites allowed.

1) provide uncapped data to any website, effectively providing complete Internet access for free. Not a great business plan.2) provide capped data to any website for free.3) provide uncapped data to a limited number of sites for free.

Option one simply won't work from a business perspective. It comes down to 2 or 3. Either way, in no economically viable universe are the local ISPs in developing countries going to provide substantial VoIP or video streaming services for free.

I'd like to know the alternative is that will provide those services without providing massive government subsidies.

Fairly good case. Even if the photographer owns the copyright (probable) and licensed it for use (highly doubtful), I think there's about a nil chance that the couple signed a release broad enough to include featuring it on the cover of a book, e or otherwise.

But I reckon Amazon et. al., are on pretty firm ground due to Section 230. The author? Not so much.

The key here is consumers benefit because Google shows results from their vertical search products, reducing the need to visit any specialized search engine, be it from Google or a competitor.

A Modest Proposal would be for Google to do some A/B testing while they are still allowed to operate their own search engine. In Bucket A, Google. In Bucket B, the version of Google that the EU & its corporate backers have promoted-- no product search results, no map on the results page, no dictionary definitions, no calculators, etc.

It's not "big super computers" as you hyperventilate in your post. Rather, the well-informed representative was placidly referring to "big giant super computers." Try to get it straight next stop & end this dedication to pursuing your agenda from clouding your judgment.

What the cabbies want seems reasonable on the surface. Not sure why the Techdirt article takes such a negative to the cabbies call for deregulation. Yes, there are differences. But it's long been Uber's claim (and Techdirt, and others) that the cab industry is an over regulated, captured industry. Many of those regulations should go away, I would think this would be the one cabbie protest Techdirt could get behind. Looks to me like TD is being reflexively anti-cabbie, when the whole tone of this action is world's apart from the typical anti-Uber attack.

Does Techdirt think taxis have the right level of regulation now? That would be news!

Perhaps, but the court has no power over "the media" at large. At most, they could have sway over students acting as the media. Certainly the kangaroo court can't prohibit media from asking a questions about a court case. I mean, they can, but whatever punishment they mete out has no power outside of the ivory towers.